Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

The Rule That Would Make IRA Tax Credits ‘Unworkable’

Regardless of who’s eligible for what and when, strict “foreign entity of concern” provisions could make clean energy incentives impossible to take advantage of.

•
The Chinese flag and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The word of the moment in renewable energy is “unworkable.” That’s how the chief executives of two major renewables developers — John Ketchum of NextEra and Jim Murphy of Invenergy — described new requirements inserted into clean energy tax credits by congressional Republicans in recent weeks.

“The way they’re drafted, they’re unworkable,” Ketchum said of the requirements at a Politico summit held earlier this week. He was referring specifically to a new set of provisions in the House budget reconciliation bill which say that to qualify for the credits, companies must divest their supply chains from “foreign entities of concern,” a group of countries comprising Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. But really, the rules are about China.

Around 80% of the global solar panel supply chain runs through China, according to the International Energy Agency. The batteries used in many stationary storage systems are almost entirely made in China, to name just a couple isolated examples. Starting in 2026, the bill mandates that developers seeking to claim the clean energy production or investment tax credits may not receive “material assistance” from China. That refers to any component or subcomponent (including critical minerals) that was “extracted, processed, recycled, manufactured, or assembled” by a “prohibited foreign entity,” defined as a company with at least 25% Chinese ownership or 10% Chinese debt holdings, according to a memo by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. The rules become even more strict in 2028. Similar strictures were also added to the 45X advanced manufacturing tax credit.

A small modular reactor has at least 10,000 component parts, Ketchum told the Politico audience. “We come to find out that one of the screws in the bolts, used by one of the suppliers five layers down … was actually sourcing the bolt and the screw from China. Guess what happens? You’re disqualified, all your tax credits for that small modular reactor go away,” Ketchum said.

“How in the world are you going to trace five layers down to a subcontractor who’s buying a bolt and a screw?”

Murphy, the Invenergy CEO, put it more succinctly at an industry conference last week. “The supply chain can not support that, and won’t be able to support that for several years. It’s just an unworkable provision.”

While these may sound like the exaggerations of executives eager to avoid paperwork or costly new investments, analysts who have looked at the bill’s language have similarly concluded that the language is both so vague and so broad that determining whether a company has complied would be almost impossible.

Analysts at the investment bank Evercore wrote in a note to clients last week that while the new FEOC framework “ostensibly aims to keep China out of U.S. energy supply chains, it would likely bury companies and their suppliers in such onerous paperwork and diligence that the remaining tax credits are rendered largely unusable.”

Foreign entity of concern rules are not new — versions of them appear in the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act’s electric vehicle tax credits. The FEOC rules in the One Big, Beautiful Bill are far more extensive, however.

The Senate may look to loosen the rules, according to Axios, and several House Republicans have signed (yet another) letter, this one referring to the restrictions as “highly restrictive and onerous” and “overly prescriptive and risk undermining U.S. competitiveness.”

Should the FEOC provisions become law, their exact implementation will be up to the IRS. In the case of EVs, the tax agency came out with proposed guidelines in the months after the Inflation Reduction Act was enacted, but didn’t finalize them until 2024. Even complying with those required a “Herculean” effort from the EV and battery industry, Albert Gore, head of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me.

Gore also questioned whether the rules would be “workable” as written. To determine whether compliance would be worth it, Gore said, you have to evaluate how close an industry is to complying in the present, and the value of complying in the future, and the cost to get there.

Given that the clean energy and manufacturing credits sunset after 2031 (except for wind components, which sunset earlier), that calculation may very well come out negative. And then there’s the deadline to even qualify for the clean energy tax credits in the first place, starting construction two months after the bill passes, according to the House language.

The EV rules did ultimately support U.S. manufacturing, Gore told me. “It was a pretty efficient investment in American manufacturing, kind of disguised as a consumer EV credit,” he said. “But it was a very, very stringent credit.”

Xan Fishman, senior managing director of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, was skeptical that the FEOC provisions in the budget reconciliation bill would do anything to bolster U.S. manufacturing. “Intricate and complicated doesn’t make it more effective,” he told me.

“You would have a disallowance of credit if you are a foreign entity of concern, or you are a foreign influenced entity of concern, which might mean that one of your suppliers is a foreign entity of concern, or one of your supplier’s board members is from China or they have a family member that’s from China that runs a foreign entity of concern, or that family member has some business transaction involving debt with a foreign entity of concern, and their suppliers actually might have board members who have family members who have some debt arrangement with the foreign entity of concern,” Fishman elaborated.

This is where workability really comes in.

“If the result of this is we have less U.S. manufacturing, we won’t have achieved the goal” of raising America’s global competitiveness. “Nor will we have been tough on China,” Fishman said.

The ironies of the legislation abound. “There's sort of that double whammy in there with the start of construction deadline, which to some extent, makes the FEOC moot,” Murphy, the Invenergy CEO, said at the conference. “If you don't start construction by the deadline, who cares about it?”

Ironically, if the Senate put in a more relaxed deadline to qualify for the credits, “then we have to really address those foreign entity of concern provisions,” Murphy added.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

How to Channel Voters’ Anxieties About Data Centers

A conversation with the Guardrails Alliance’s Shaunna Thomas.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Shaunna Thomas of the Democrat-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, which describes itself as “not anti-technology” but supportive of AI “rules, accountability, and a government that actually represents the public.” Part of that AI accountability they’re calling for is on data centers.

After the midterms, Guardrails Alliance sent a memorandum to all House and Senate Democratic offices arguing for AI and data center accountability to be a key part of their message and plans heading into the new Congress. Described as a “playbook for how to understand and channel anxieties about AI and data centers,” the document laid out “key narratives” that they said voters who care about these issues want to see reflected and echoed by their politics. They said the push against data centers could help Democrats build more lasting political power.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Consider the Lobstermen Affected by New York’s Empire Wind

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New York City — We have a new must-watch offshore wind lawsuit with potential implications for the entire sector — and this time, it’s from lobstermen seeking damages.

  • In late October, a family of lobstermen sued Equinor in federal court claiming the company’s compensatory mitigation program is failing to adequately make up for alleged negative impacts to lobster fishing grounds in the New York Bight. According to the lawsuit, the wind project irreparably hurt fishing in previously trafficked waters. The suit also claims that Empire Wind construction destroyed lobster fishing pots and seeks at least $75,000 in damages as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
  • The lawsuit is the first I have seen involving someone in aquaculture suing for damages over negative impacts of an already-constructed wind project, and it carries outsized implications as the Trump administration remands without vacatur the construction and operations plans for other offshore wind farms. This case is far from being decided, but that doesn’t matter: It is precisely the kind of complaint that Trump officials are likely to consider as they mull revisions to operational plans.
  • An Equinor spokesman declined to comment on the case, telling me they don’t speak on pending litigation.

2. Hinds County, Mississippi — The largest proposed solar farm in Mississippi is moving forward after an appeals court rejected arguments from aggrieved local residents that it had been improperly approved.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

Data Center Developers Can’t Pay People Enough to Accept Them

Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.

Donald Trump and data center protesters.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.

Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow